They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people with less than 100k employees that also has an editor review everything.
That's a terrible argument as the thing to be reviewed (advertisement (not "everything")) is directly connected to a revenue stream and the level of time spent on reviews scales with the amount of income.
I am curious about how other similar platforms handle this problem (like youtube) handles this kind of problems. If someone could provide some insight it would be great
They are all the same way, maybe even worse. Google is notoriously allergic to having real people in any step of a workflow, even for paying customers. Twitter is currently going through its own battle with the fact that a huge chunk of the userbase isn't even real. Amazon product quality is going down due to lack of manual quality checking of their sellers. And so on. The culprit is always the same: real people don't scale to the expectations of shareholders, so everything gets automated, and then some very real people show up and exploit the system.
You: "If they complied with the law, then they wouldn't be profitable."
It seems your conclusion is, "Therefore they should be above the law."
No, that isn't how it works. They *must* comply with the law, and if they cannot be profitable when they are not a criminal entity, then they should go out of business.
